reddit_post

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it delivers almost nothing: it doesn't say the call is authenticated, that an `access_token` is expected, that posting may be rate-limited or rejected by subreddit rules, or that 'self' vs 'link' kinds have different required fields. Only the bare fact that this is a write/creation operation is conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no filler, but this is terseness rather than conciseness — the length reflects under-specification, not efficiency. Nothing about the request shape, constraints, or outcome is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, a four-word description is far from sufficient. An agent cannot determine required field combinations, auth expectations, or failure modes without opening the schema and guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 8 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain `kind`, `subreddit`, `title`, `url` vs `text`, `nsfw`, `spoiler`, and `access_token`. It explains none of them, and in particular never clarifies that `url` is used for `kind=link` and `text` for `kind=self`, which is the single most important semantic in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb plus a resource ("Create a Reddit post"), so the basic action is unambiguous. But it is essentially an expansion of the tool name `reddit_post` and gives no detail that separates it from siblings such as `reddit_comment`, `reddit_vote`, or `reddit_subscribe` beyond the noun 'post'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus `reddit_comment`, `reddit_read`, or any other Reddit sibling, and no prerequisites (subreddit rules, auth, required token) are mentioned. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.